New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-06-12
LIFE INSURANCE SYSTEMS.
A STRONG OPINION By JUDGE ANDREWS.
THE DECISION AN IMPORTANT ONE IN REGARD III
COOPERATIVE COMPANIES.

COOPERATIVE COMPANIES
The old contest between the cooperative system OF e
insurance and tho regular method based upon scenho
principles founded In upon tables OF longevity mas
broken out anew. Judge Andrews OF the supreme
Court has Just delivered opinion OF much weight
and force In tho case OF the people OF the stato
OF Nev-York against the Mutual Trust Fund lAie
Association q cooperative and assessment association
organized originally under Chapter 267 Of the laws OF
1878 and rencorpora.ed under Chapter 10 OF the laws
OF 1883.
It's alleged that tho death rate to the fall Oh 1880
had greatly increased that the insolvency oil the com
pany was assured the basis OF state requirements
Accordingly in November OF that year 1t Is further al
Legged the association made contract with the Lie IN
surance Company OF Virginia whereby 1t SOLD all Oh us
property that company under agreement lor re-
surance by tho latter company OF the members OF the
former Notice taken Of this action In December last
by the State Infurance Department. The superintendent
OF Insurance subsequently reported to the AtOrney0cn
era opinion that inc association should be restrained
from continuing its business In this opinion the Attor
neyeheral concurred and application was made 10
the court show why the company should not DO
restrained The Atiorney-Gencral also commenced an
notion under povsaps OF the Code of Procedure In
respect to dissolution OF corporations. to effect the
dissolution of this With the complaint in that
action The Attorney General: served notice OF
motion for injunction and the appointment OF re-
cever In this action the association appeared and
demurred the complaint the ground tha tho court
had not Jurisdiction and also the ground that the
complaint did not constitute cause OF action IL also
raised tho same questions before Justice Lawrence In
opposition tho motion for injunction and receiver
In the first proceeding the association demanded
trial by Jury. Such proceeding Will naturally bring
out much valuable Information respecting the merits OF
the two systems In this connection IL may be added
that bill has been introduced into the Legislature
with curaing the formation OF cooperative and
assessment companies In the referred to OF the
People Va Mutual Trust Fund Life Association tho
defendants demur the following grounds:
First That the has Jurisdiction OF the person
OF the defendant
second That tho court has jurisdiction OF the sub
ject OF the action o,
cieut 10 constitute cause or action.
Counsel for defendant claimed that the asso-
citation was incorporated under laws which declare
that the corporations incorporated hereunder shall
he subject only the provisions OF that act and as there
is nothing In expressly making corporations in
corporaied hereunder subject to the provisions OF the
60 e OF Civil Procedure necessarily follows that the
jur sdcton OF ae person OF the defendant
or the subject OF the action Justice Androws says
distinctly that in his opinion this claim is not we'll
founded. lie says:
II seems To me that "suhjsct only to the
visions OF this act" considering the connection In which
they are used do not warrant the construction which
counsel for the defendant, claims sboald be
placed upon them. Sections i've and six declare that
INV c,rpor,ri1n association or society which does
certain things shall he deemed 10 be, respectively en-
Taced in the business OF life Insurance casualty nsur
snce upon the operative plan, and shall
he "suDject only 10 the provisions OF this act
The Justice continues with some warmth to rcpe the
idea that corporations incorporated under that act shall
be placed and beyond the reach % other general
statutes Of the which do specially relate 10 life
and casualty corporations. lie gives the ASSOCIATION
square slap in the face when he says
II the vorls subject only to the provisions
Of this art" 10 he literally ana narrowly
construed .hen that the defendant eau suo
mr. lla lad a IL
corpora ions Incorporated under that act have any o
the common Law powers usually possessed by corpora
tons.
lie further fortunes himself Icy quoting from an earlier
ruling in which held that ~ statute should not
be 80 cons rued WORK public mischief" TINS ex-
Preston IS evidently meant to be significant and app-
cable with unusual force 10 the case under consideration
"lnteui" he adds. must be primarily sought In the
language OF the statute. Tho words IN Sdeh case
ordinarily declare The Intention OF the Legislature
The Justice Further decides. however that no
injunction he granted or receiver
amounted IN the pre- action until after the verdict
OF Jury las been obtained II the jury should decide
that the corporation continue business the Court
cannot appoint receiver grant an Injunction In the
acion The CONCLUSION OF he opinion or Justice Andrews
has "A saubrious ~ well as positive tolc. He says:
Defendants counsel also confcuds that the defendant
l. not insovcnt and cannot become in,olvehL II IS
sufrirut answer this contention that ihc complaint
nj - that defendant Is iuolvent and unable "a pay
lis debts. and The Demurrer lnteosed 9dnl,s t.i tne,e
allegations of Tie HplIut .Ic true 30 cover teFc u
nothing Whatever before the court uioh Nili'h u
base decision thai ne Defendant IN INC hee OF
mi, naais, on IS nOt iusoyrnt and cannot become III
,oycnt 10 s claimed that a' me payments 20 meet IN
.ulince- made hy corporations created u1ier -aI chap
ter 10 20 he voluntary, such cnppfh"us cannot
become tu-oVcnL II seems clear, ho"eVrF that such
corporations incur some obligations 70 thrr members
ami ~ cases. the performance OF me EQUATIONS
does rot depend on tne amount re"l' rom yolhiaty
contributions. II seems tn me thht the de!r'"hI
m -ht very wei De tusoyout. - the demurrer admits IL
there Is nothing before the Court to show III natareor
extent of m business may have Incurred. aud from the
facl. dis, -ci presume tngi II had incurred LIABILITIES
Ia ~ members which 1t could not meet IL appears 10
have had -GDCO) hand. but what the nature OF the
aim. or heirs % members upon that iuni were does
nan at,ucar | suppose t may he safely assumed that
me cniuauy was difficulty 0f some sort or II would
nU of ia "t-ta, ding risks and have turned
over $4,000 TO the Insurance Department or VIZ
ginia.
The decision IL regarded by Insurance inn
por,nut in that It brings TO direct issue the
advantages Of tho respective systems OF HE insur-
arre. Tie Insurance ny the defendant company Of
IL. r..s I'm a company doing business upon the regular
lie insurance svsien l. regarded concession that
the latter after all the safer and more Desirable OF
.br Two - ems and is consequently yindcaton Of the
r. -ular scientific principle an paipaDIe admission Oh
weakness IN the cooperative plan
COLLEGE, BOYS REHENBER THEIR JINiIOR
Tho members OF the graduating cll., in the University
Of the city Of New-York made themselves AMI their
"aaoptcd father" Henry \ Mathews, the janiior Of the
COLLEGE buildings exceedingly happy last night, when
they met in the paror and celebrated the
| time honored custom OF presentation" or al HUI
m,pation., "a 1t was called this year.
owing to tho manner IN winch tln pre- S S was
ever since he To the buildings m 1870 to give mo
boys "a spread" Just before they were graduated ana
I'm return his kindness each class mas presenter
him with token Of their esteem
Last evening. when the boys gathered
afo ,nsrs tho and ample hi, ceSTy WIFE had
provided FOR thcm handsome br9nl1 piano LAMP '9St .